RESEARCH ARTICLE
The fodder grass resources for ruminants: A
indigenous treasure of local communities of
Thal desert Punjab, Pakistan
Humaira ShaheenID1,2*, Rahmatuallah Qureshi3, Mirza Faisal Qaseem4,5, Piero Bruschi6
1 COMSATS University Islamabad, Pakistan, 2 Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation & Sustainable Utilization/ Key Laboratory of Digital Botanical Garden of Guangdong Province, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China, 3 Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan, 4 State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Subtropical Agro-bioresources, Guangzhou, China, 5 Guangdong Key Laboratory for Innovative Development and Utilization of Forest Plant Germplasm, College of Forestry and Landscape Architectures, South China Agricultural University. Guangzhou, China, 6 Department of Agricultural, Environmental, Food and Forestry Science (DAGRI) University of Florence, Italy
*humaira.shaheen@comsats.edu.pk,hshaheen@scbg.ac.cn
Abstract
Indigenous people have been using local grasses for rearing their animals for centuries. The present study is the first record of traditional knowledge of grasses and livestock feeding system from the Thal desert in Pakistan. A snowball sampling method was used to identify key participants. Information was collected from the respondents from six districts of Thal Desert through semi-structural questionnaire and site visits. The data was analyzed through Smith’s salience index and Composite Salience using ANTHROPAC package in R software. On the whole 61 grasses were recorded from the study area: most of them belong to the Poaceae family (52 species). Based on palatability grasses were categorized into three major groups i.e. (A) High priority, (B) Medium priority and (C) Low priority. Species in Group A, abundantly present in the study area represent a source of highly palatable forage for all ruminants. 232 (141M +91W) local participants were interviewed. Participants were grouped into three major age categories: 20–35 (48 participants), 36–50 (116 participants) and 51–67 years old (68 participants). ANTHROPAC frequency analysis confirmed the Smith’s salience index and Composite Salience; Cynodon dactylon was the favorite species (6.46 SI, 0.6460 CS) followed by Cymbopogon jwarancusa (5.133 SI, 0.5133 CS) and Sor-ghum sp. was the third most salient species (5.121 SI, 0.5121 CS). Grasses were mostly available during the months of August and October and had also ethnoveterinary impor-tance. This document about the traditional feeding of livestock in Thal Desert can underline the importance of conserving a traditional knowledge, which was poorly documented before. a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Shaheen H, Qureshi R, Qaseem MF,
Bruschi P (2020) The fodder grass resources for ruminants: A indigenous treasure of local communities of Thal desert Punjab, Pakistan. PLoS ONE 15(3): e0224061.https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0224061
Editor: Narel Y. Paniagua-Zambrana, Universidad
Mayor de San Andre´s, PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
Received: October 9, 2019 Accepted: January 28, 2020 Published: March 5, 2020
Copyright:© 2020 Shaheen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work. The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan, for providing travel grant for visit to USA to improve the data analyzing skills.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
Background
In rural areas of Pakistan, agro-pastoral activities play a crucial role in the development of the local economy, accounting for more than half of the total agricultural income and 10.6% of the national GDP [1]. These activities are particularly important in the economy of the country’s desert regions where land cultivation is difficult and livestock husbandry is the main and often unique survival strategy and income source for the local communities. Moreover, milk and meat production may counteract the impact of climatic unpredictability on fluctuations in food availability, especially in areas facing frequent crop shortages. According to data reported by Farooq et al. [2], in Pakistan 8.1% of buffaloes, 13.5% of cattle, 15.3% of sheep and 14.4% of goats are raised in desert districts. However, husbandry in these areas is often an uncertain and low-paid activity; shortage of fodder as a result of severe climatic conditions, high rate of diseases, limited availability of veterinary services and poor access to animal vaccination are important constraints limiting the local livestock productivity [2]. The sustainable production of livestock under harsh climatic conditions needs efficient strategies for improving fodder uti-lization and management [3]. From this perspective, traditional knowledge can be an impor-tant source of information on local wild forage resources and on their nutritive properties. Several studies have shown that smallholder farmers in many parts of the world have a deep practical knowledge about the importance and quality of plants used to feed animals. Ethnobo-tanical investigations on fodder plants have been carried out in Africa [4–6], Brazil [7], India [8,9] and China [10–12]. Many studies throughout the world highlight the diverse and abun-dant use of grasses and sedges as fodder; grasses and sedges are generally reported to be palat-able and highly productive resources and to have high forage potential especially in arid and semiarid areas [12,13].
Previous studies have shown that Thal is rich in grasses and sedges [14]; most of the grasses are used by local population as fodder [10,13,15]. However, no detailed study carried out to analyze utilization and selection strategies of these plants by shepherds and farmers living in this zone. Extensive areas in the Thal have been overgrazed and are now strongly threatened by desertification [16,17]. Understanding the relative importance and preference of different species is crucial for a sustainable management of the local forage resources and can help ani-mal husbandry technicians to optimize the selection of useful fodder species and to improve the livestock system efficiency. Moreover, recording this knowledge would be a much faster and cheaper method for learning about palatability and nutritive value of these plants.
The major aims of this study were: (1) To document traditional knowledge about the use of grasses and sedges as fodder in Thal and to assess similarities and differences with the studies previously conducted in the same [15] and in neighboring areas [11,12]. (2) To evaluate the impact of socioeconomic factors on the local ethnobotanical knowledge. (3) To rank, by order of preference, the different species used in the animal diet. (4) To quantify the influence of sea-sonal variation on the availability of these plants as animal feed.
Materials and methods
Description of the study area
The Thal desert is located between 31˚ 10’ N and 71˚ 30’ E in the Punjab province, Pakistan (Fig 1). It is a subtropical sandy desert lying between the Indus River flood plains in the west and Jhelum and Chenab River flood plains in the east. About 50% of the Thal is under arid to hyper-arid climatic conditions (mean annual rainfall less than 200 mm) and the remaining half is characterized by semiarid climatic conditions (annual mean rainfall between 200 and 500 mm). Most of rainfall occurs between June and August. Average temperatures range
between 3–8˚C in winter and 32–40˚C in summer. Wind erosion is a serious problem leading to the loss of topsoil and organic matter and damage to crop plants.
This region is divided into six districts viz. Bhakkar, Khushab, Mianwali, Jhang, Layyah, and Muzaffargarh.
In Thal desert livestock is considered as a secure source of income for small farmers and the landless poor. According to Husain [18] the average herd size is 17 standard animal units. Livestock herds consist of animals of different age and sex; on average each farm has 22.8 goats, 16.7 sheep, 7 cattle, 2.51 buffaloes, 0.88 camels, 0.21 donkeys and 0.05 mules. Detailed information on grazing and stall feeding practiced in the area is given in Faraz et al.[19].
Ethnobotanical survey
The ethics committee/IRB of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi approved this study. Formal ethical consent was also obtained from all participants before the research started. Data were collected for two consecutive years (from March 2016 to March
Fig 1. Map of the Thal desert area.
2018), twice a year from each of the Thal desert six districts. Participants were selected by snowball-sampling technique [20] among village leaders, shepherds and both farm and domes-tic livestock caretakers. Interviews were carried out complying with the ethics guidelines com-monly followed in ethnobotanical studies [21,22]. Information was gathered by using different approaches i.e. group discussions with participants, individual semi-structured ques-tionnaires and participant observation (Fig 2) [23,24]. The questionnaires were drafted in the local language (Seriki and Punjabi) and included the following major questions: (i) Which
grasses/sedges are used as fodder? (ii) Which grasses/sedges are preferred as feed for cattle, sheep, camels, buffaloes, and goats? (iii) What is the palatability of the different used plants? (iv) Which plant part do animals consume? (v) What are the feeding habits of different ani-mals? (vi) Which livestock feeding system does local people adopt: free grazing or cut and
Fig 2. Ethnobotanical survey and data collection.
carry? (vii) Do the listed fodder plants have any ethnoveterinary use? (viii) What are their other indigenous uses?
In the second stage of the field research we used direct observation of livestock grazing hab-its to evaluate the palatability of different plants, animal preferences and the growth stages of plants at the time of grazing.
Collection and identification of plants
Plant collection was performed with the help of local participants during the field survey. Iden-tification of the gathered species was carried out by the herbarium specialist Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad and by the taxonomist Dr. Humaira Shah-een (Fig 3). Botanical nomenclature of species and families complies with online Flora of Paki-stan (http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=5) [24] and the herbarium specimens were kept in the Botany Department of Pir Mehr Ali Shah University of Arid Agriculture.
Data analysis
The most common method to measure relative abundance was visual assessment and observa-tion of ethnobotanically important grasses in the study area [12]. Total study area was almost 20,000 square kilometers. We randomly divided each district into 45–50 plots and plot size was (10X10m = 100m2). Results were constructed by percentage of relative abundance through the following formula:
RA ¼Total percentage cover of species over all plots Number of plots estimated � 100
Based on the abundance value, grasses were categorized into the following groups i.e. abun-dant, common, frequent, occasional and rare (Table 1).
Relative frequency of citation (RFC) was calculated to sort listed plants by priority order, using the following formula [12,24–26]:
RFC ¼fc n
Wherefc is the number of participants that mentioned the fodder use of the species and “n”
is the total number of participants included in the study.
Pairwise comparison (PWC) was also used to determine the priority order of the listed spe-cies [12,27]. Ten participants (5 key participants and 5 randomly selected) were chosen for the PWC. The participants were asked, one at a time, to select their preferred fodder plants from all possible pairs of species. Each species got a score of 1 if the participants selected it. Adding the scores and ranking them to obtained the final score.
Fig 3. Different steps in the collection and identification of grasses.
Smith’s salience index and Composite Salience [28] were used to evaluate species saliency by weighing the average of the inverse rank of a species across multiple free-lists where each list was weighed by the number of species in the list. ANTHROPAC [28] was used to generate Smith’s salience indexes.
Pairwise ranking or comparison was used to evaluate the degree of preference or levels of importance. The values for use reports across the selected species were summed up and ranked. Ten participants (six key and four randomly taken participants) in the study area ranked grasses according to their use e.g. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5threspectively. Ranking can be used for evalu-ating the degree of preference or level of importance of selected plants [28–30].
Respondent Consensus Factor (Fic): The Respondent consensus factor was derived in order to seek the importance of species used as fodder, Forage, Mixed feed and veterinary uses [31].
Fic ¼Nur Nt Nur 1
Where Nur is the number of use-reports in each disease category; Nt is number of species used.
Socioeconomic factors
In total, 232 local participants were interviewed (Table 2); 141 were men and 91 were women. A smaller number of female participants were expected and this can be partially explained with the local cultural restrictions preventing women from working outside their homes or farms. Participants were grouped into three major age categories: 20–35 (48 participants), 36– 50 (116 participants) and 51–67 years old (68 participants). With regard to the profession, 34% (36 women and 44 men) were shepherds, 26% (27 women and 33 men) were farmed livestock caretakers and 40% (28 women and 64 men) domestic livestock caretakers. Thirty-six (16%) of
Table 1. Relative abundance categories and coverage in the study area.
Abundance scale Abundance categories Coverage of Grasses
Rare (R) <7% 1 Occasional (O) 7–10% 2 Frequent (F) 10–25% 3 Common (C) 25–55% 4 Abundant (A) 55–100% https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224061.t001
Table 2. Demography of participants of the study area.
Type of Respondents Young aged Middle aged Seniors aged Total 20–35 36–50 51–67
Local Shepherds (F) 8 19 9 36
Local Shepherds (M) 11 20 13 44
Farmed Ruminant care takers (F) 5 17 5 27
Farmed Ruminant care takers (M) 11 16 6 33
Domestic Ruminant care takers (F) 7 12 9 28
Domestic Ruminant care takers (M) 6 32 26 64
Total Respondents 48 116 68 232
Key: Local Shepherds (who take care cattle in the field for free grazing), Farmed Ruminant caretakers (who take care cattle in the livestock forms), Domestic Ruminant
caretakers (who take care cattle in their home).
the interviewed people were illiterate, 24 (10%) never completed their primary education, 120 (52%) completed 5 years of primary school and 52 (22%) participants had middle education level (Fig 4) [24].
Results and discussion
Use of fodder species
The participants reported the use of 61 plant species that were distributed into 40 genera and 3 botanical families. The most represented genus wasCyperus with 5 species, followed by Cen-chrus and Eragrostis with 4 species each. Most species belonged to Poaceae family (51 species;
84% of the reported plants) while 8 species (13%) were categorized into Cyperaceae family.
Fig 4. Education levels of participants.
Typhaceae were represented by only one species:Typha elephantina. Fifty-five species (92% of
the reported species) were classified as native and 5 (8%) as exotic. The following exotic species were reported by participants:Chloris gayana, Imperata cylindrica, Paspalum dilatatum, Sor-ghum bicolor and Vetiveria zizanioides. These results seem to reflect composition and
distribu-tion patterns of the local flora. In a floristic checklist of Thal desert, Shaheen et al. [14] observed that Poaceae was the main family with 52 species. Of the 52 Poaceae naturally occur-ring in the area, 48 (94%) were reported to be used as fodder in our study; 5 were not cited by participants and 4 (Brachiaria reptans, Eragrostis atrovirens, E. cilianensis, Themeda anathera)
were reported in our study but not in the floristic inventory. All the eight Cyperaceae cited were included in the study conducted by Shaheen et al. [14].
Our comparative analysis revealed that 15 species are used as fodder in all the considered studies. We found a mean similarity (Jaccard index) rather high (36.4± 6.9) with values ranging from 30.8 (this study vs [11]) to 50.0 ([12] vs [11]). These studies were all conducted in zones lying in the proximity of the study area that share not only similar ecological factors but also the same socioeconomic and cultural history. Nevertheless, our study listed 20 grasses not previ-ously reported in the fodder category for this area. These results provide an important new con-tribution to the knowledge on wild fodder plants in Pakistan. At the same time, they also show the importance of collecting new ethnobotanical information even in already studied areas.
Socioeconomic factors
Participants mentioned 8.27± 4.49 taxa (range 1–18). Gender (H = 0.373; P > 0.05) and edu-cation (H = 5.29; P> 0.05) had no influence on the knowledge of fodder plants. Gender influ-ence on traditional knowledge is controversial [32] and many studies have showed that the statistical strength of this relation depends on the local cultural context and on the categories of use that the researchers focus on. A lack of differentiation between men and women, as observed in this study, could mean that there is not a clear division of labor in the area. A simi-lar finding was observed by Aumeeruddy et al. [32] in Northern Pakistan, where women have a detailed knowledge on characteristics and properties of the different fodder species, suggest-ing that they fully share with men the responsibility of livestock rearsuggest-ing and forage collection. Khan and Khan [33] observed that most of the women of Cholistan desert have an important
Table 3. Pair wise ranking of wild palatable plants from all districts of Thal.
S. No. Botanical name R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 T R
1 Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp. jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 48 1ST
2 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 43 2ND
3 Cenchrus ciliaris L. 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 39 3RD 4 Typha elephantina Roxb. 5 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 3 1 38 4TH 5 Cyperus alopecuroides Rottb. 4 2 3 3 4 3 5 4 2 3 33 5TH
6 Eragrostis minor Host 2 2 3 4 4 5 2 2 3 5 32 6TH
7 Sporobolus arabicus Boiss. 2 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 3 5 31 7TH 8 Brachiaria reptans (L.) C. A. Gardner & C.E. 1 5 4 2 3 1 0 4 5 5 30 8TH
9 Tragus roxburghii Panigrahi 1 5 4 2 3 1 0 4 5 5 30 9TH
10 Lasiurus sindicus Henr. 4 2 2 4 5 3 2 2 4 1 29 10TH
11 Aristida funiculate Trin. & Pupr. 5 4 2 3 1 0 4 5 3 2 29 10TH 12 Cenchrus pennisetiformis Hochst. & Steud. 1 5 4 2 3 1 0 4 5 4 29 10TH
13 Saccharum spontaneum L. 2 2 3 4 4 5 2 2 3 2 29 10TH
14 Themeda triandra Forsk. 5 4 2 3 1 0 4 5 3 2 29 10TH
15 Pycreus flavidus (Retz.) T. Koyama 2 3 3 2 4 1 3 2 3 5 28 11TH
role in managing livestock, spending almost 8 to 13 hours a day in this activity. Differently Nunes et al. [7] and Bruschi et al. [6] showed that men prevail in the knowledge about fodder plants. The greater male knowledge found in these two studies may be explained by different gender-based experiences and skills: men spend much of their time moving with their herds while women are more frequently involved in managing food and family care. The age of par-ticipants resulted to be statistically significant (H = 9.97; P < 0.05). As also shown in many other ethnobotanical studies [34–36] elderly people seem to retain more traditional knowledge on the use of plants. For young people (25–35 years old), the average number of known fodder plants was 6.65± 4.12 while for middle-aged (36–50) and elderly participants (> 50) there was an average number of 8.25± 4.13 and 9.42 ± 4.74, respectively. Occupation also strongly affected the number of fodder species reported by participants (H = 14.58; P < 0.01). Domestic livestock caretakers mentioned a higher number of plants (9.50± 4.43) followed by farmed
Fig 5. Co-relation used for pairwise comparison of different grasses.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224061.g005
Fig 6. Prioritizing of fodder grasses based on RFC.
Table 4. List of the collected grasses, ethnobotanical and ethno veterinary data, abundance; focal persons count (FC) and relative frequency citation (RFC) of fodder grasses from the area of Thal desert area, Punjab Pakistan.
S. No.
Voucher No Botanical name Local name Palatable Fodder part Feeding method Ethno veterinary Other uses Soil ecology RA FC (n) RFC 1 PMAS-AAUR-2013-320
Cyperus alopecuroides Rottb. G, S, B, C, CA
WP Fo NO NO NO F 225 0.9698
2 PMAS-AAUR-2013-321
Cyperus difformis L. Bhudde G, S, B, C WP Fo NO NO NO C 161 0.6940 3
PMAS-AAUR-2013-322
Cyperus digitatus Roxb. Sowe G, S, B, C WP Fo, For NO Fuel Soil binder
C 130 0.5603 4
PMAS-AAUR-2013-323
Cyperus imbricatus Retz. G, S, B, C, R
WP Fo, For NO NO Soil
binder
F 124 0.5345 5
PMAS-AAUR-2013-324
Cyperus rotundus L. Dela G, S, B, C, R, P
WP Fo YES YES Soil
binder
A 123 0.5302 6
PMAS-AAUR-2013-325
Fimbristylis
quinquangularis (Vahl) Kunth
Murrakh G, S, B, C, R
WP Fo, For NO NO Soil
binder
O 139 0.5991 7
PMAS-AAUR-2013-325
Pycreus flavidus (Retz.) T.
Koyama
Sayyar Ghaah G, S, B, C, R
WP Fo, For NO YES Soil
binder
O 169 0.7284 8
PMAS-AAUR-2013-327
Pycreus sanguin (Vahl) Nees Ghaa G, S AP,JS Fo NO YES NO F 122 0.5259 9
PMAS-AAUR-2013-328
Aeluropus lagopoides (L.) Thwaites
Kalar Ghaah G, S, C WP Fo NO YES NO A 135 0.5819
10 PMAS-AAUR-2013-329
Aristida adscensionis L Lamb Ghaas G, S WP Fo, For YES NO NO A 157 0.6767 11
PMAS-AAUR-2013-330
Aristida funiculata Trin. &
Pupr.
Lamb Ghaas G, S, C WP Fo, For NO NO NO A 209 0.9009 12
PMAS-AAUR-2013-331
Arundo Donax L. Narr G, S, C, B AP, JS Fo, For, Mf
YES YES NO A 162 0.6983
13 PMAS-AAUR-2013-333
Brachiaria eruciformis (J.E.
Smith) Griseb
G, S, B, C WP Fo, For NO NO NO A 190 0.8190
14 PMAS-AAUR-2013-332
Brachiaria ovalis Stapf Ghaa G, S, C, B WP Fo NO YES NO A 160 0.6897 15
PMAS-AAUR-2013-334
Brachiaria reptans (L.) C. A.
Gardner & C.E.
Ghaah G, S, C, B WP Fo, For NO NO NO A 222 0.9569
16 PMAS-AAUR-2013-335
Bromus pectinatus Thunb. G, S WP Fo NO YES NO A 140 0.6034 17
PMAS-AAUR-2013-336
Bromus sericeus Drobov S, G WP Fo NO YES NO A 156 0.6724 18
PMAS-AAUR-2013-337
Celotia argentea L. Ghaah S, G WP Fo NO NO NO 155 0.6681 19
PMAS-AAUR-2013-338
Cenchrus biflorus Roxb. Mohabbat buti/ Ludri
S, G JS Fo, Mf YES NO NO A 123 0.5302
20 PMAS-AAUR-2013-339
Cenchrus ciliaris L. Drahman/ Dhaman ghaa
G, S, B, C, CA
WP Fo, For YES YES NO A 230 0.9914
21 PMAS-AAUR-2013-340
Cenchrus pennisetiformis
Hochst. & Steud.
Dhamni S WP Fo NO YES NO A 206 0.8879
22 PMAS-AAUR-2013-341
Cenchrus setigerus Vahl Talra S, G WP Fo YES YES Soil binder
C 125 0.5388 23
PMAS-AAUR-2013-342
Chloris gayana Kunth Chitta ghaa S, G JS Fo NO NO NO A 149 0.6422 24
PMAS-AAUR-2013-343
Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp. jwarancusa (Jones)
Schult.
Khavi G, S, B, C, CA
AP, JS Fo, For, Mf
YES YES Soil binder
C 231 0.9957
25 PMAS-AAUR-2013-344
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Talla G, S, B, C, CA
AP Fo, For YES YES Soil
binder
C 231 0.9957 (Continued )
Table 4. (Continued)
S. No.
Voucher No Botanical name Local name Palatable Fodder part Feeding method Ethno veterinary Other uses Soil ecology RA FC (n) RFC 26 PMAS-AAUR-2013-345 Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd.
Madhana ghaa S, C WP Fo YES NO Soil
binder
C 161 0.6940 27
PMAS-AAUR-2013-346
Dactyloctenium aristatum Madhana G, S, B WP Fo, For NO NO Soil binder A 189 0.8147 28 PMAS-AAUR-2013-347 Desmostachya bipinnata (L.) Stapf.
Dab Ghaa G, S, B, C, WP Fo, Mf YES YES Soil
binder A 188 0.8103 29 PMAS-AAUR-2013-348 Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf
Murgha ghaa S, G WP Fo YES YES Soil
binder
A 159 0.6853 30
PMAS-AAUR-2013-349
Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel S, G AP Fo, For NO YES Soil binder
F 124 0.5345 31
PMAS-AAUR-2013-350
Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Gandel ghaa S AP Fo YES NO Soil binder
C 124 0.5345 32
PMAS-AAUR-2013-351
Enneapogon persicus Boiss. S AP Fo NO NO NO A 185 0.7974 33
PMAS-AAUR-2013-352
Eragrostis atrovirens (Desf.)
Trin. Ex Steud. Ghaah G, S, B, C, CA WP Fo, For NO NO NO A 182 0.7845 34 PMAS-AAUR-2013-353
Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Lut.
ex F.T. Hubbard Ghaa G, S, B, C, CA WP Fo,F or NO NO NO A 147 0.6336 35 PMAS-AAUR-2013-354
Eragrostis ciliaris (L.) R. Br. Ghaa S, G WP Fo NO NO NO A 152 0.6552 36
PMAS-AAUR-2013-355
Eragrostis minor Host Ghaa S, G WP Fo YES NO NO A 223 0.9612 37
PMAS-AAUR-2013-356
Eragrostis pilosa (Linn.) P. Beauv.
G, S, B, C, CA
WP Fo, For YES NO NO R 180 0.7759
38 PMAS-AAUR-2013-357
Imperata cylindrica (L.)
Raeuschel.
Dab Ghaas S AP, JS Fo NO NO NO O 120 0.5172
39 PMAS-AAUR-2013-358
Lasiurus sindicus Henr. Karera G, S, B, C, CA
WP Fo, For YES NO Soil
binder
C 200 0.8621 40
PMAS-AAUR-2013-359
Leptochloa panicea (Retz.)
Ohwi S WP Fo, Mf NO YES NO C 146 0.6293 41 PMAS-AAUR-2013-360 Ochthochloa compressa (Forssk.) Hilu Juth Madhaana/ Chhimbar/ Buchri ghaa S AP Fo NO NO Soil binder A 154 0.6638 42 PMAS-AAUR-2013-361
Panicum psilopodium Trin. S AP Fo, For, Mf NO NO Soil binder C 123 0.5302 43 PMAS-AAUR-2013-362
Paspalum dilatatum Poir. Ghaa S WP Fo NO NO Soil binder
C 129 0.5560 44
PMAS-AAUR-2013-363
Phalaris minor Retz. Dumbi sitti G, S, B, C, CA
WP Fo NO NO NO F 179 0.7716
45 PMAS-AAUR-2013-364
Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin.
ex Steud.
Narr S, B L Fo NO YES NO C 177 0.7629
46 PMAS-AAUR-2013-365
Poa annua L. Machhar ghaa G, S, B, C, CA
WP Fo NO NO NO C 138 0.5948
47 PMAS-AAUR-2013-366
Saccharum bengalense Retz. Saroo B, C L Fo, For, Mf
YES YES Soil binder
O 144 0.6207 48
PMAS-AAUR-2013-367
Saccharum spontaneum L. Saroo B, C L Fo, For, Mf
YES YES Soil binder
O 199 0.8578 49
PMAS-AAUR-2013-368
Schismus arabicus Nees Ghaa S AP Fo NO NO Soil binder
A 143 0.6164 50
PMAS-AAUR-2013-369
Setaria intermedia Roem. &
Schult S WP Fo NO NO Soil binder A 142 0.6121 51 PMAS-AAUR-2013-370
Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. &
Schult.
S WP Fo NO NO Soil
binder
F 169 0.7284 (Continued )
livestock caretakers (7.98± 4.02) and shepherds (7.10 ± 4.60). Domestic livestock caretakers spend much time with cattle and have a better knowledge about the animals’ favorite foods.
Pairwise ranking of wild palatable plants
Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp. jwarancusa with 1strank was the most preferred among all selected grass species, followed byCynodon dactylon, Cenchrus ciliaris, Typha elephantina and Cyperus alopecuroides that had 2nd3rd, 4thand 5thrank respectively.Pycreus flavidus received
the lowest score, therefore resulting as the less preferred species (Table 3). The most highly ranked species (Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp. Jwarancusa, Cynodon dactylon, Cenchrus ciliaris, Typha elephantina and Cyperus alopecuroides) are also the most dominant in the area
(Shaheen, unpublished data). This finding seems to support the “appearance hypothesis” stat-ing that the most abundant species are better known and mostly used [37]. Plants commonly
Table 4. (Continued)
S. No.
Voucher No Botanical name Local name Palatable Fodder part Feeding method Ethno veterinary Other uses Soil ecology RA FC (n) RFC 52 PMAS-AAUR-2013-371
Sorghum bicolor (Linn.)
Moench. Milo G, S, B, C, CA WP Fo, For, Mf YES YES NO A 169 0.7284 53 PMAS-AAUR-2013-372
Sorghum Sect. Sorghum
Subsect.Arundinacea Moench.
Milo G, S, B, C,
CA
WP Fo, Mf NO YES NO A 150 0.6466
54 PMAS-AAUR-2013-373
Sporobolus arabicus Boiss. G, S, B, C, CA
WP Fo NO YES NO A 219 0.9440
55 PMAS-AAUR-2013-374
Stipagrostis plumosa (Linn.)
Munro ex T.
Chita gah G, S WP Fo NO NO Soil
binder
F 137 0.5905 56
PMAS-AAUR-2013-375
Themeda anathera G, S WP Fo, For NO NO NO F 126 0.5431 57
PMAS-AAUR-2013-376
Themeda triandra Forsk. G, S WP Fo, For NO NO NO R 167 0.7198 58
PMAS-AAUR-2013-377
Tragus roxburghii Panigrahi Ghaa G, S WP Fo NO YES NO A 192 0.8276 59
PMAS-AAUR-2013-378
Trisetum clarkei (Hook.f.) R.
R. Stewart G, S WP Fo NO NO Soil binder R 142 0.6121 60 PMAS-AAUR-2013-379
Vetiveria zizanioides (Linn.) Nash
G, S AP Fo, For NO NO NO R 118 0.5086
61 PMAS-AAUR-2013-380
Typha elephantina Roxb. Kundar B, C L Fo, For, Mf
NO YES NO F 227 0.9784
Whole plant (WP), Leaves (L), Areal parts (AP), Juvenile stage (JS), Cow (C), Buffalo (B), Goat (G), Sheep (S), Camel (CA), Rabbit (R), Porcupine (P) Fo, Fodder, For, Forage, Mf, Mix with feed, Goat, RA Relative abundance, A Abundant, C Common, F Frequent, O Occasional, R Rare
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224061.t004
Table 5. Respondent consensus factor for grasses used by animals. Use
categories
Nt Nur Fic Plants
Fodder 62 7168.9 0.99 Cyperus alopecuroides, Eragrostis minor, Aristida funiculata, Cynodon dactylon, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp. Jwarancusa, Typha elephantina, Brachiaria reptans
Forage 27 2299.9 0.98 Cynodon dactylon, Cenchrus ciliaris,Aristida funiculata, Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp. Jwarancusa, Typha elephantina, Brachiaria reptans
Mix with feed 12 501.9 0.97 Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp. Jwarancusa,Typha elephantina, Saccharum spontaneum, Sorghum bicolorDesmostachya bipinnata
veterinary 18 403 0.95 Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus biflorus, Desmostachya bipinnata, Cyperus rotundus, Cynodon dactylon, Digitaria ciliaris, Saccharum spontaneum
growing in the area allow local people to have more experience of their properties and conse-quently have a greater probability of being introduced into the local culture.
Correlation used for pairwise comparison
On the basis of RFC value, pairwise comparison was used to correlate fodder grasses and the knowledge of the respondent. Ten out of 232 respondents were chosen on the basis of their profession (ethnoveterinary practitioner) but were potential respondents due to sufficient indigenous knowledge. Based on RFC values knowledge of respondent R1 showed a strong correlation with R4, as R2 (0.56; p<0.001) with R1 and R7 (0.55;p<0.001), R2 had a strong correlation with R3 and R8 (0.48, 0.58; p<0.001) but R2 had the strongest correlation with R9 (0.71; p<0.001). All correlation and the distribution of RFC values are shown inFig 5. The positive correlation between respondents suggests that respondents report similar information about the plant; for example, R2 and R9 both were ethnoveterinary practitioners more than 50 years old, so they had similar knowledge.
Availability and prioritizing fodder grasses on the basis of RFC and PWC
RCF values ranged from 1 to 0.51 with a mean value of 0.71. Twenty-five species had RFC val-ues higher than average while the remaining 35 species had RFC value lower than average (Fig 6,Table 4).Cymbopogon jwarancusa and Cynodon dactylon showed the highest value (1.00)
whileImperata cylindrical (0.52) and Vetiveria zizanioides (0.51) had the lowest. Fic inTable 5
Fig 7. Grouping of ethnobotanically used fodder grasses based on cluster analysis.
conformed thatCymbopogon jwarancusa, Cynodon dactylon and Cenchrus ciliaris have highly
useful as fodder. Based on these RFC values fodder species were classified into three categories of priority: species with higher priority (group A), species with medium priority (group B) and species with low priority (group C). Twenty-eight (45.9%) species were highly preferred by the participants, followed by twenty-three (37.7%) species that had medium priority while ten (16.3%) grass species were the least preferred (Fig 7). Values ranged between 1–0.69 for group A, between 0.69–0.54 for group B and between 0.54–0.51 for group C. Similar results were shown by Harun et al. [12] in their study. These results were confirmed by cluster analysis based on RFC in which the reported species were classified into three major groups compliant with the results of priority ranking analysis. Similar results were found when we performed cluster analysis using PWC data.Cymbopogon jwarancusa was the preferred species in both
approaches (Table 6).
Table 6. Pairwise comparison (PWC) based on similar RFC vales of fodder grasses.
Fodder grasses Total gained % points Rank GROUP A (RFC = 0.9957–0.9009)
Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp. jwarancusa 88.2 1st
Typha elephantina 87.3 2nd Cynodon dactylon 87.1 3rd Cenchrus ciliaris 85.1 4th Cyperus alopecuroides 84 5th GROUP B (RFC = 0.8879–0.8103) Cenchrus pennisetiformis 72.5 1st Lasiurus sindicus 63.5 2nd Saccharum spontaneum 62.4 3rd Tragus roxburghii 60.9 4th GROUP C (RFC = 0.7974–0.6940) Enneapogon persicus 77.9 1st Eragrostis atrovirens 76.8 2nd Eragrostis pilosa 72.1 3rd Phalaris minor 70.1 4th Phragmites karka 61.1 5th GROUP D (RFC = 0.6897–0.6121) Brachiaria ovalis 72.1 1st Dichanthium annulatum 60.3 2nd Aristida adscensionis 59.9 3rd Bromus sericeus 58.7 4th Celotia argentea 55.9 5th GROUP E (RFC = 0.6034–0.6) Bromus pectinatus 92.8 1st Fimbristylis quinquangularis 90.5 2nd Poa annua 85.2 3rd Stipagrostis plumosa 76.9 4th GROUP F (RFC = 0.5431–0.5086) Themeda anathera 59.1 1st Cenchrus setigerus 55.6 2nd Cyperus imbricatus 54.9 3rd Digitaria ciliaris 52.3 4th https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224061.t006
The species included in Group A (high priority) are ecologically dominant and largely avail-able in the area. Moreover, taxa included in this group have a good palatability and are also available during the dry season when other grazing resources are exhausted.
Palatability of grasses and the method of feeding
Preferred palatable species are often leafy, with less stem, a low leaf table and leaves of low ten-sile strength [37,38]. Palatability analysis showed that 77% of the reported species are grazed in the study area (Table 7). In particular; grasses included in the group A of the priority ranking were consumed by all ruminants locally raised. Goats are the only animals to feed on every type of grass growing in Thal desert although palatability results show a preference for 58% of the reported species. 40% of the species represented the favorite fodder for sheep and 26% the favorite fodder for buffaloes. Camels are very selective animals and use only few specific
Table 7. Frequency analysis for palatability, parts used for eating and feeding methods and relative abundance of fodder grasses.
Studied parameters Frequency Valid percent Cumulative percent
Co, Bu, Sh, Go, Ra 1 1.64 1.64
Co, Bu, Sh, Go 6 9.84 11.48
Co, Bu, Sh, Go, Ra 4 6.56 18.03
Go, Sh, Co 3 4.92 22.95
Go, Sh 20 32.79 55.74
Go, Sh, Co, Cm 1 1.64 57.38
Co, Bu, Sh, Go, Cm 11 18.03 75.41
Bu, Sh, Go 1 1.64 77.05 Co, Bu 3 4.92 81.97 Go 9 14.75 96.72 Sh 2 3.28 100 Total 61 100 Whole plant 42 68.85 68.85 Leaves 4 6.56 75.41 Juvenile 2 3.28 78.69
Aerial, whole plant at Juvenile 1 1.64 80.33
Aerial, Juvenile 2 3.28 83.61
Aerial and leaves 2 3.28 86.89
Aerial 8 13.11 100.00 Total 61 100 Fo 31 50.82 50.82 Fo,For, Mf 7 11.48 62.30 Fo, Mf 21 34.43 96.72 Fo,Mf 2 3.28 100.00 Total 61 100 Abundant 30 49.18 49.18 Common 13 21.31 70.49 Frequent 9 14.75 85.25 Occasional 5 8.20 93.44 Rare 4 6.56 100 Total 61 100
Key: Co (Cow), Bu (Buffalo), Sh (Sheep), Go (Goat), Ra (Rabbit), Cm (Camel), Fo (Fodder), For (Forage), Mf (Mix Fodder)
grasses as fodder (Fig 8). Different parts showed to have different edibility: for example 42% of grass species were consumed as whole plant (e.g.Cynodon dactylon, Eragrostis minor, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus pennisetiformis, etc.) while 38% and 19% of them were consumed as aerial
parts and as leaves, respectively. The reason why so many grasses are grazed as a whole is prob-ably related to their small size and tender herbaceous texture (e.g.Cynodon dactylon, Lasiurus sindicus, Phalaris minor, Cyperus rotundus, Eragrostis minor etc. similar results shown in other
literature [12,13]. Due to the sandy nature of soils occurring in the study area these plants have shallow root systems and can easily be pulled out from the soil. Species growing in the form of dense patches are hard to be consumed as a whole and animals feed only on the aerial parts. Beliefs on livestock feeding habits are common in the area: for example, some local shep-herds reported that putting the herd out to pasture in open fields improves their health and milk production. According to them freely grazing animals are able to select the best grasses, avoiding the toxic or less nutritious ones. They justify this belief by comparing milk produc-tion of freely grazing animals with forage-fed cattle and also by saying that during dry season, when free grazing is not possible, there is a considerable reduction in animal health and milk production [38,39].
Role of the fodder species on milk production
Ten out of the 80 interviewed shepherds (based on the respondent knowledge) were randomly sampled to examine in detail the role of fodder species on the milk production. We focused our attention on the shepherds because, during the interviews, they showed a deeper knowl-edge about the plant species influencing quantity and quality of milk. According to them,
Cynodon dactylon was the best species for milk production (6.46 SI, 0.6460 CS) followed by
Fig 8. Grasses preference by animals.
Table 8. Results of ANTHROPAC analysis of overall salience index of milk for producing species.
S. No.
Botanical name Inverted Rank/Total Listed = Smith,s Salience Index Illness S Composite Salience S/n (n = 10)
(SS1) (SS2) (SS3) (SS4) (SS5) (SS6) (SS7) (SS8) (SS9) (SS10)
1 Cynodon dactylon 1 0.96 0.9 0.883 1 0.867 0.85 6.46 0.6460 2 Cymbopogon jwarancusa 0.933 1 1 0.15 0.3 0.883 0.867 5.133 0.5133 3 Sorghum Sect. Sorghum 0.96 1.00 0.82 0.67 0.4 0.4 0.21 0.34 0.321 5.121 0.5121 4 Cenchrus ciliaris 0.933 0.75 0.933 0.42 0.51 0.51 0.4 0.15 4.606 0.4606 5 Typha elephantina 0.933 0.96 0.321 0.05 0.75 0.3 0.152 0.04 0.321 0.058 3.885 0.3885 6 Eragrostis minor 0.867 0.34 0.867 0.82 0.017 0.82 3.731 0.3731 7 Brachiaria reptans 0.62 0.72 0.321 0.05 0.75 0.3 0.152 0.04 0.321 0.058 3.332 0.3332 8 Sporobolus arabicus 0.85 0.767 0.783 0.017 0.532 0.33 3.279 0.3279 9 Aristida funiculata 0.82 0.67 0.083 0.768 0.083 0.833 3.257 0.3257 10 Cenchrus pennisetiformis 0.833 0.767 0.096 0.073 0.767 0.096 0.073 0.767 3.472 0.3472 11 Lasiurus sindicus 0.076 0.017 0.8 0.0764 0.0432 0.054 0.098 0.76 0.87 0.0973 2.8919 0.2892 12 Saccharum spontaneum 0.767 0.82 0.67 0.017 0.3 0.152 0.04 2.766 0.2766 13 Tragus roxburghii 0.021 0.02 0.031 0.768 0.8 0.0764 0.017 0.767 0.096 0.017 2.6154 0.2615 14 Brachiaria eruciformis 0.769 0.767 0.096 0.073 0.083 0.098 0.063 0.65 2.599 0.2599 15 Dactyloctenium aristatum 0.017 0.767 0.096 0.073 0.57 0.767 0.096 0.017 2.403 0.2403 16 Desmostachya bipinnata 0.733 0.82 0.67 0.017 0.083 2.323 0.2323 17 Enneapogon persicus 0.734 0.083 0.15 0.07 0.0631 0.023 0.421 0.51 2.0541 0.2054 18 Eragrostis atrovirens 0.735 0.03 0.042 0.15 0.768 0.12 0.032 0.027 0.053 0.0564 2.0154 0.2015 19 Eragrostis pilosa 0.0432 0.054 0.15 0.076 0.217 0.717 0.021 0.52 0.031 0.096 1.9252 0.1925 20 Phalaris minor 0.8 0.0764 0.017 0.083 0.033 0.05 0.032 0.083 0.7 1.8744 0.1874 21 Phragmites karka 0.701 0.01 0.023 0.74 0.15 0.07 0.0631 0.023 0.032 1.8161 0.1816 22 Pycreus flavidus 0.683 0.096 0.01 0.023 0.23 0.7 0.032 0.027 1.805 0.1805 23 Setaria pumila 0.65 0.15 0.07 0.0631 0.7 0.07 0.0631 0.023 1.7892 0.1789 24 Sorghum bicolor 0.0764 0.0432 0.054 0.651 0.217 0.15 0.07 0.0631 0.017 0.437 1.7787 0.1779 25 Themeda triandra 0.68 0.076 0.23 0.117 0.021 0.652 1.776 0.1776 26 Vetiveria zizanioides 0.617 0.15 0.07 0.0631 0.7 1.6001 0.1600 27 Cyperus difformis 0.6 0.0432 0.054 0.15 0.076 0.217 0.43 1.5702 0.1570 28 Dactyloctenium aegyptium 0.0432 0.054 0.651 0.567 0.0764 0.017 0.027 0.07 1.5056 0.1506 29 Brachiaria ovalis 0.13 0.51 0.0764 0.0432 0.054 0.651 0.017 1.4816 0.1482 30 Dichanthium annulatum 0.132 0.242 0.517 0.15 0.076 0.017 0.15 0.07 0.0631 0.023 1.4401 0.1440 31 Aristida adscensionis 0.5 0.142 0.251 0.217 0.01 0.023 0.23 0.017 1.394 0.1394 32 Bromus sericeus 0.054 0.45 0.083 0.054 0.051 0.567 1.259 0.1259 33 Celotia argentea 0.433 0.0432 0.054 0.051 0.567 0.0764 1.2246 0.1225 34 Ochthochloa compressa 0.076 0.23 0.4 0.071 0.083 0.0764 0.0432 0.054 1.0336 0.1034 35 Eragrostis ciliaris 0.367 0.076 0.23 0.14 0.07 0.15 0.083 1.116 0.1116 36 Cyperus alopecuroides 0.251 0.333 0.0432 0.054 0.051 0.05 0.025 0.142 0.9492 0.0949 37 Chloris gayana 0.3 0.142 0.071 0.01 0.023 0.23 0.017 0.0631 0.023 0.8831 0.0883 38 Eragrostis cilianensis 0.051 0.083 0.076 0.023 0.4 0.071 0.051 0.05 0.805 0.0805 39 Leptochloa panicea 0.284 0.026 0.0432 0.054 0.14 0.07 0.083 0.054 0.033 0.7872 0.0787 40 Saccharum bengalense 0.02 0.0710 0.055 0.046 0.0532 0.064 0.25 0.01 0.083 0.054 0.7142 0.0714 41 Schismus arabicus 0.2 0.061 0.05 0.083 0.076 0.023 0.22 0.713 0.0713 42 Setaria intermedia 0.055 0.067 0.183 0.0132 0.211 0.071 0.051 0.05 0.7012 0.0701 43 Trisetum clarkei 0.167 0.233 0.0432 0.054 0.026 0.0432 0.054 0.011 0.04 0.6714 0.0671 44 Bromus pectinatus 0.14 0.15 0.017 0.117 0.15 0.076 0.017 0.667 0.0667 45 Fimbristylis quinquangularis 0.151 0.0432 0.046 0.0532 0.064 0.25 0.017 0.6244 0.0624 (Continued )
Cymbopogon jwarancusa (5.133 SI, 0.5133 CS). Cymbopogon jwarancusa was also reported to
give a peculiar aroma, increasing the milk’s value.Sorghum sp. was the third most salient
spe-cies (5.121 SI, 0.5121 CS) (Table 8). This findings were confirmed when we extended our anal-ysis to all the participants. According to the results of the ANTHROPAC frequency analanal-ysis, ranking the plants in the order of their citation frequency (Fig 9),Cynodon dactylon had
73.21% frequency of milk production, following byCymbopogon jwarancusa (70.54%) and Sorghum sp. (67.86%).
Table 8. (Continued)
S. No.
Botanical name Inverted Rank/Total Listed = Smith,s Salience Index Illness S Composite Salience S/n (n = 10) (SS1) (SS2) (SS3) (SS4) (SS5) (SS6) (SS7) (SS8) (SS9) (SS10) 46 Poa annua 0.071 0.051 0.05 0.017 0.233 0.0432 0.152 0.6172 0.0617 47 Stipagrostis plumosa 0.117 0.017 0.071 0.051 0.05 0.017 0.233 0.0432 0.5992 0.0599 48 Aeluropus lagopoides 0.055 0.161 0.0432 0.054 0.011 0.033 0.055 0.026 0.0432 0.054 0.5354 0.0535 49 Cyperus digitatus 0.1 0.023 0.046 0.0532 0.064 0.05 0.0710 0.055 0.046 0.5082 0.0508 50 Paspalum dilatatum Poir. 0.032 0.042 0.217 0.102 0.046 0.046 0.017 0.502 0.0502 51 Themeda anathera 0.0432 0.054 0.011 0.033 0.25 0.083 0.4742 0.0474 52 Cenchrus setigerus 0.0432 0.054 0.017 0.0432 0.054 0.071 0.051 0.05 0.084 0.4674 0.0467 53 Cyperus imbricatus 0.051 0.067 0.071 0.051 0.0432 0.152 0.4352 0.0435 54 Digitaria ciliaris 0.067 0.233 0.0432 0.054 0.026 0.4232 0.0423 55 Eleusine indica 0.05 0.0432 0.233 0.026 0.054 0.4062 0.0406 56 Cyperus rotundus 0.01 0.05 0.017 0.071 0.011 0.033 0.055 0.0710 0.055 0.373 0.0373 57 Cenchrus biflorus 0.033 0.017 0.0432 0.054 0.011 0.054 0.064 0.0432 0.017 0.011 0.3474 0.0347 58 Panicum psilopodium 0.033 0.017 0.071 0.051 0.05 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.321 0.0321 59 Pycreus sanguin 0.011 0.031 0.055 0.0110 0.023 0.011 0.033 0.055 0.0710 0.017 0.318 0.0318 60 Imperata cylindrica 0.017 0.033 0.011 0.046 0.0532 0.064 0.055 0.2792 0.0279 61 Arundo Donax 0.018 0.071 0.051 0.05 0.042 0.017 0.249 0.0249 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224061.t008
Fig 9. Frequency of milk producing species according to participants ranking.
Fig 10. Percentage of species in each group.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224061.g010
Fig 11. Availability of grasses in the study area.
Relative abundance and seasonal availability
Relative abundance analysis showed that most of the cited species (55%) were abundantly pres-ent in the study area and most of them belonged to priority Group A (Fig 10). 13.39% of the species were available in August and in October while 12.54% were available in July. In Paki-stan, July, August and October are months characterized by monsoon rains fostering the grass biomass development (Fig 11).
People use livestock for improving their economic life
Livestock production makes the main contribution to agriculture value-added services in the study area. Ten local participants were asked to rank animals from one to five on the basis of their economic value. Milk production is the major income source for people living in the Thal desert; for milk production, to cows and buffaloes are raised more frequently than camels or goats (Fig 12). Goats, sheep, buffaloes and cows are also raised for meat production. During religious celebrations (such as pilgrimages and Eid ul Azha) shepherds and farmers take live-stock to the local market for sale and this is another major income source as also shown in [40]. Skins from sheep, buffaloes, cows and camels are also sold for making leather goods; teeth and bones are used for making different objects (e.g. buttons, jewelry and decoration pieces) (Fig 12). Dung of buffaloes and cows is dried and used as fuel or, fresh, as a natural
Fig 12. People use livestock for improving their economic life in Thal Desert.
Table 9. Grasses use in ethno-veterinary and ethnobotanical uses of grasses. S.
No.
Botanical name Ethnobotanical Uses Ethno veterinary uses 1 Aeluropus lagopoides (L.)
Thwaites
Fuel
---2 Aristida adscensionis L --- Controls itching 3 Arundo Donax L. --- Gastrointestinal 4 Arundo Donax L. Fencing, inkpot pen, hollow stem for announcement ---5 Brachiaria ovalis Stapf Fuel ---6 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. Fuel ---7 Bromus sericeus Drobov Fuel ---8 Cenchrus biflorus Roxb. --- Diuretic 9 Cenchrus ciliaris L. Fuel Diuretic 10 Cenchrus pennisetiformis Hochst.
& Steud.
Fuel
---11 Cenchrus setigerus Vahl Fuel Diuretic 12 Cymbopogon jwarancusa subsp.
jwarancusa (Jones) Schult.
Fumigant for measles, matrices (Chatai) for typhoid, root extract for typhus fever and cough, Seeds for chicken pox, roof thatching, roots khass for washing domestic pots/utensils
Fumigant for skin diseases, fragrance in milk, Diuretic and improve fertility in bull 13 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Remove pimples, feet burning sensation, fever Paste of leaves controls dysentery and
anti-inflammatory to wounded areas of animal’s body
14 Cyperus digitatus Roxb. Fuel
---15 Cyperus rotundus L. Fuel Antidiarrheal and gur function stabilizer 16 Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.)
Willd.
--- Used to reduce after birth abdominal pains
17 Desmostachya bipinnata (L.)
Stapf.
Broom making, Fuel Digestive disorders, Dysentery
18 Dichanthium annulatum
(Forssk.) Stapf
Fuel Digestive disorders
19 Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel Fuel
20 Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. --- Cure digestive disorders 21 Eragrostis minor Host --- Digestive disorders 22 Eragrostis pilosa (Linn.) P. Beauv. --- Help to cure contusion 23 Imperata cylindrica (L.)
Raeuschel.
--- Fumigant for Piles
24 Leptochloa panicea (Retz.) Ohwi Fuel ---25 Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin. ex
Steud.
Writing pen (Qalam) trunk, thatching of roof, and fuel source, shoes making
---26 Pycreus flavidus (Retz.) T.
Koyama
Fuel
---27 Saccharum bengalense Retz. Culms used for making matrices, chairs (Morrhe), hand fan, cages (Pinjra), brooms (Jhaaru), etc. Leaves used for making matrices (Chatai). Leaf sheaths beaten to make strong ropes (Rassi)
Leaves used to treat oral problems of ruminants
28 Saccharum spontaneum L. Leaves Decoction for stoppage of urination (Micturition),fuel, culm used for making cages, roof thatching (Patalan) and ornamental goods. Leaves woven to make matrices
Root help to relieve in inflammation and urinary problems
29 Sorghum bicolor (Linn.) Moench. Fuel Wounds, fever, anemia and constipation (Continued )
fertilizer to improve the soil fertility. Ox, buffaloes and sometimes camels are used for plough-ing. Camels are commonly used for transportation in desert areas.
Indigenous uses and ethno-veterinary uses of grasses
Eighteen of the 61 reported species were locally used in ethno-veterinary practice. Cymbopo-gon jwarancusa was the most cited veterinary grass (48) and was reported to heal infertility
and skin diseases in ruminants (Table 9). Other species (Cenchrus spp., Arundo donax, Des-mostachya bipinnata, Dichanthium annulatum, Digitaria ciliaris, Eleusine indica, Eragrostis
spp.,Saccharum spontaneum) were frequently reported as remedies to treat urinary and
diges-tive diseases in livestock. Similar results are shown in different studies [12,41,42]. Urinary and digestive diseases were the most frequently reported disorders; this finding is probably due to the sandy nature of the soil, causing the accumulation of sand-laden feed material in the digestive apparatus and urinary tract of livestock. Fic analysis showed inTable 5that according to the ParticipentsCenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus biflorus, Desmostachya bipinnata, Cyperus rotundus, Cynodon dactylon, Digitaria ciliaris and Saccharum spontaneum are important for
veterinary uses.
Conclusion
The present study provides an inventory of plant species, plant parts and diversity in palatabil-ity and feeding behavior. The data analysis highlighted the possible motives behind the greater acceptability ratio of high priority fodder grasses: i.e. diversity in their palatability for major ruminant species, availability in the study area, and versatility of feeding methods. This study is not only significant for the conservation of ethnobotanical knowledge but may also help in facilitating sustainable feeding for ruminants. Subsequently, the information may play a major role in improving the livelihood of smallholder farmers. A blend of traditional and scientific knowledge is required to produce a worthwhile criterion for selecting fodder grasses. If some of the grasses show promising nutritional and pharmacological value, then necessary steps to conserve the area and the species should be taken. This will help to boost up the economy of the country.
Acknowledgments
Authors are highly thankful to Higher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan and Key Labo-ratory of Plant Resources Conservation & Sustainable Utilization/ Key LaboLabo-ratory of Digital Botanical Garden of Guangdong Province, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510650, China for their help in statistical analysis and facilitation in
Table 9. (Continued) S.
No.
Botanical name Ethnobotanical Uses Ethno veterinary uses
30 Sorghum Sect. Sorghum Subsect. Arundinacea Moench.
Fuel
---31 Sporobolus arabicus Boiss. Fuel ---32 Tragus roxburghii Panigrahi Fuel ---33 Typha elephantina Roxb. Fuel, roof thatching, ropes, matrices, inflorecese medicinally importance
and shoes making
manuscript writing. The first author is also thankful to Chinese academy of sciences for post-doctoral fellowship under the President’s International Fellowship Initiative (PIFI) program.
Author Contributions
Formal analysis: Mirza Faisal Qaseem. Investigation: Humaira Shaheen. Methodology: Humaira Shaheen.
Project administration: Humaira Shaheen. Supervision: Rahmatuallah Qureshi. Validation: Mirza Faisal Qaseem.
Writing – original draft: Humaira Shaheen.
Writing – review & editing: Humaira Shaheen, Piero Bruschi.
References
1. Ghazali A. Analyzing the relationship between foreign direct investment domestic investment and eco-nomic growth for Pakistan. International Research Journal of Finance and Ecoeco-nomics. 2010; 47 (1):123–31.
2. Farooq U, Ahmad M, Saeed I. Enhancing livestock productivity in the desert ecologies of Pakistan: set-ting the development priorities. Pakistan Development Review. 2009; 48(4):795–823.
3. Hussain F, Durrani MJ. Seasonal availability, palatability and animal preferences of forage plants in Har-boi arid range land, Kalat, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany (Pakistan). 2009.
4. Okoli I, Ebere C, Uchegbu M, Udah C, Ibeawuchi I. A survey of the diversity of plants utilized for small ruminant feeding in south-eastern Nigeria. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment. 2003; 96(1–3):147– 54.
5. Bahru T, Asfaw Z, Demissew S. Ethnobotanical study of forage/fodder plant species in and around the semi-arid Awash National Park, Ethiopia. Journal of forestry research. 2014; 25(2):445–54.
6. Bruschi P, Urso V, Solazzo D, Tonini M, Signorini MA. Traditional knowledge on ethno-veterinary and fodder plants in South Angola: an ethnobotanic field survey in Mopane woodlands in Bibala, Namibe province. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development (JAEID). 2017; 111 (1):105–21.
7. Nunes AT, Lucena RFP, dos Santos MVF, Albuquerque UP. Local knowledge about fodder plants in the semi-arid region of Northeastern Brazil. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. 2015; 11(1):12. 8. Singh V, Gaur R, Bohra B. A survey of fodder plants in mid-altitude Himalayan rangelands of
Uttara-khand, India. Journal of Mountain Science. 2008; 5(3):265–78.
9. Nautiyal S. Interactions Between Humans and Ecosystems in Himalayas of India and Its Socioeco-nomic and Ecological Consequences: An Ecological Modelling Approach. Ecosystem Functions and Management: Springer; 2017. p. 39–57.
10. Abdullah M, Rafay M, Hussain T, Ahmad H, Tahir U, Rasheed F, et al. NUTRITIVE POTENTIAL AND PALATABILITY PREFERENCE OF BROWSE FOLIAGE BY LIVESTOCK IN ARID RANGELANDS OF CHOLISTAN DESERT (PAKISTAN). JAPS, Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2017; 27(5):1656– 64.
11. Zareen A, Khan Z, Ajaib M. Ethnobotanical evaluation of the shrubs of Central Punjab, Pakistan. Biolo-gia (Pakistan). 2013; 59(1):139–47.
12. Harun N, Chaudhry AS, Shaheen S, Ullah K, Khan F. Ethnobotanical studies of fodder grass resources for ruminant animals, based on the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities in Central Punjab Pakistan. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. 2017; 13(1):56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-017-0184-5PMID:28978348
13. Geng Y, Hu G, Ranjitkar S, Wang Y, Bu D, Pei S, et al. Prioritizing fodder species based on traditional knowledge: a case study of mithun (Bos frontalis) in Dulongjiang area, Yunnan Province, Southwest China. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. 2017; 13(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-017-0153-zPMID:28472968
14. Shaheen H, Qureshi R, Akram A, Gulfraz M, Potter D. A preliminary floristic checklist of Thal Desert Punjab, Pakistan. Pak J Bot. 2014; 46(1):13–8.
15. Khalil AT, Shinwari ZK, Qaiser M, Marwat KB. Phyto-therapeutic claims about euphorbeaceous plants belonging to Pakistan; an ethnomedicinal review. Pak J Bot. 2014; 46(3):1137–44.
16. Abbasi AM, Khan SM, Ahmad M, Khan MA, Quave CL, Pieroni A. Botanical ethnoveterinary therapies in three districts of the Lesser Himalayas of Pakistan. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. 2013;9.https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-9
17. Khan M, Khan MA, Mujtaba G, Hussain M. Ethnobotanical study about medicinal plants of Poonch val-ley Azad Kashmir. J animal plant Sci. 2012; 22:493–500.
18. Hussain I. Profile of Livestock Production in Thal Desert of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2017; 7(3):480–94.
19. Faraz A, Waheed A, Ishaq H, Mirza R. Rural Development by Livestock Extension Education in South-ern Punjab. J Fisheries Livest Prod. 2019; 7(287):2.
20. Waters J. Snowball sampling: a cautionary tale involving a study of older drug users. International Jour-nal of Social Research Methodology. 2015; 18(4):367–80.
21. Ahmad Z, Zamhuri KF, Yaacob A, Siong CH, Selvarajah M, Ismail A, et al. In vitro anti-diabetic activities and chemical analysis of polypeptide-k and oil isolated from seeds of Momordica charantia (bitter gourd). Molecules. 2012; 17(8):9631–40.https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules17089631PMID:22885359
22. ISo E. ISE Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). International Society of Ethnobiology; 2006.
23. Zubair M, Khan S, Hussain SB, Haq AU, Jamil A. Ethnobotanical Study Of Pakistan’s Southern Punjab Tehsil Of Dunyapur. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Studies. 2019; 2(09):40– 52.
24. Shaheen H, Qureshi R, Qaseem MF, Amjad MS, Bruschi P. The cultural importance of indices: A com-parative analysis based on the useful wild plants of Noorpur Thal Punjab, Pakistan. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2017; 12:27–34.
25. Shaheen H, Qureshi R, Akram A, Gulfraz M. Some important medicinal flora of Noorpur Thal, Khushab, Pakistan. Archives Des Sciences. 2012; 65(2):57–73.
26. Shaheen H, Qaseem MF, Amjad MS, Bruschi P. Exploration of ethno-medicinal knowledge among rural communities of Pearl Valley; Rawalakot, District Poonch Azad Jammu and Kashmir. PloS one. 2017; 12(9):e0183956.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183956PMID:28886077
27. Nadaf M, Joharchi M, Amiri MS. Ethnomedicinal uses of plants for the treatment of nervous disorders at the herbal markets of Bojnord, North Khorasan Province, Iran. Avicenna journal of phytomedicine. 2019; 9(2):153. PMID:30984580
28. Qaseem M, Qureshi R, Amjad M, Ahmed W, Masood A, Shaheen H. ETHNO-BOTANICAL EVALUA-TION OF INDIGENOUS FLORA FROM THE COMMUNITIES OF RAJH MEHAL AND GOI UNION COUNCILS OF DISTRICT KOTLI, AZAD JAMMU KASHMIR PAKISTAN. APPLIED ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH. 2019; 17(2):2799–829.
29. Nankaya J, Nampushi J, Petenya S, Balslev H. Ethnomedicinal plants of the Loita Maasai of Kenya. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2019:1–21.
30. Tounekti T, Mahdhi M, Khemira H. Ethnobotanical Study of Indigenous Medicinal Plants of Jazan Region, Saudi Arabia. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2019;2019. 31. Heinrich M, Ankli A, Frei B, Weimann C, Sticher O. Medicinal plants in Mexico: Healers’ consensus and
cultural importance. Social Science & Medicine. 1998; 47(11):1859–71.
32. Torres-Avilez W, Medeiros PMd, Albuquerque UP. Effect of gender on the knowledge of medicinal plants: systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medi-cine. 2016;2016.
33. Khan AA, Khan K. Womenaˆ€™s Role in Livestock Economy of Cholistan Desert, Pakistan. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research. 2015.
34. Voeks RA, Leony A. Forgetting the forest: assessing medicinal plant erosion in eastern Brazil. Eco-nomic Botany. 2004; 58(sp1):S294–S306.
35. Upadhyay B, Roy S, Kumar A. Traditional uses of medicinal plants among the rural communities of Churu district in the Thar Desert, India. Journal of ethnopharmacology. 2007; 113(3):387–99.https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2007.06.010PMID:17714898
36. de Melo JG, Santos AG, de Amorim ELC, Nascimento SCd, de Albuquerque UP. Medicinal plants used as antitumor agents in Brazil: an ethnobotanical approach. Evidence-based complementary and alter-native medicine. 2011;2011.
37. de Lucena RFP, de Medeiros PM, de Lima Arau´ jo E, Alves AGC, de Albuquerque UP. The ecological apparency hypothesis and the importance of useful plants in rural communities from Northeastern
Brazil: An assessment based on use value. Journal of Environmental Management. 2012; 96(1):106– 15.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.09.001PMID:22208403
38. Meissner H. Recent research on forage utilization by ruminant livestock in South Africa. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 1997; 69(1–3):103–19.
39. Provenza FD, Villalba JJ, Dziba L, Atwood SB, Banner RE. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity. Small ruminant research. 2003; 49(3):257–74.
40. Haleem S. Pakistan-Culture Smart!: The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture: Bravo Limited; 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4496-x
41. Abbasi AM, Khan MA, Shah MH, Shah MM, Pervez A, Ahmad M. Ethnobotanical appraisal and cultural values of medicinally important wild edible vegetables of Lesser Himalayas-Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Eth-nomed. 2013; 9(1):66. Epub 2013/09/17.https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-66PMID:24034131; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3853161.
42. Moreki JC. Documentation of ethnoveterinary practices used in family poultry in Botswana. Vet World. 2013; 6(1):18–21.
